The camera never lies...

Picture released of woman victim of Somalian Muslim murderer in Russell Square...







Anyone recognise the background...?

Why is the wall she is leaning on out of line...?

Anyone see a background cloud overlap a building...?



Now for the close up pic that is doing the rounds...




All looks reasonably ok at quick glance...


But here's another version with more brightness...!!!







Zoom in on face and facial features detail...!!!


But of course... 'the camera never lies'... does it...!!!???

I think you should get an Eye test...
Or some help.

You seem to think that a digital photo is photoshop
what you are pointing out is just DIGITAL photgraphy not photoshop

Her face looks normal ... as for the "cloud overlap," look at the photo that's been brightened and you can see the cloud isn't overlapping the building, the building has a drop-off angle on the back of its roof.

Besides, there are two important questions you have to ask if you're saying this photo was faked:

1) If someone were to go to the trouble of trying to fake this photo, do you really think they'd be so sloppy as to leave a bit of cloud on top of a building?

2) More importantly, WHY would anybody fake this photo in the first place?

Why. Always why. If I had a decent why I'd be prepared to investigate further.

veya_victaous wrote:I think you should get an Eye test...
Or some help.

You seem to think that a digital photo is photoshop
what you are pointing out is just DIGITAL photgraphy not photoshop

AS I'VE said a couple of times before...

Poor l'il ol' Tommy doesn't even seem to realise just what "Photoshop" even is..
That is,  a registered and trademarked name for a proprietary digital photo' handling and editing package.

Instead, he prefers to just keep on digging himself into that hole, deeper and deeper..

Wolf you are a prize prick... of course I bloody well know what photoshop is!!!

veya_victaous wrote:I think you should get an Eye test...
Or some help.

You seem to think that a digital photo is photoshop
what you are pointing out is just DIGITAL photgraphy not photoshop

Basically he is the worst kind of fool who has kidded himself he knows what he is talking about.   An utter clown.

Tom is so mentally disturbed he sees things that aren't there and tells people to look for something they cannot see and that isn't there without telling them what they supposed to be seeing.

Fuck me, what a twonk!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Picture released of woman victim of Somalian Muslim murderer in Russell Square...







Anyone recognise the background...?

Why is the wall she is leaning on out of line...?

Anyone see a background cloud overlap a building...?



Now for the close up pic that is doing the rounds...




All looks reasonably ok at quick glance...


But here's another version with more brightness...!!!







Zoom in on face and facial features detail...!!!


But of course... 'the camera never lies'... does it...!!!???

The wall she is leaning on looks a bit distorted but it really isn't. Put the edge of a piece of paper along the line of it and you will see it's straight.
I don't know anything about photoshop or altering pics digitally, but I do know that every photo is made up of thousands of pixilated dots, so if you zoom in close enough every picture will seem fragmented.
Lastly Tommy, I don't doubt that some pics are altered in the press and online to make a point, but why would a photo of an ordinary American tourist be altered?

It's a lefty conspiracy, Syl. The whole world is. At least, according to Tommykins it is.

Maybe HT can have a close look at the face detail and neck...?

You just burble on with your riddles,Tom.
People just cannot be bothered with your purile conspiracy theories, which are so far out you cannot even bring yourself to identify what it is.
Put up,or shut up.

Tommy Monk wrote:Maybe HT can have a close look at the face detail and neck...?

I'm not quite sure why you think this is altered. To make her look older, more elderly and therefore more fragile?

She was 64.
She looked about...............64.
Shock horror.
The lefty press have made her look more left wing or Democrat. tsk tsk. Naughty Labour Party. Corbyn will do anything to steal votes from UKIP, won't they Tom?

Handy Andy wrote:You just burble on with your riddles,Tom.
People just cannot be bothered with your purile conspiracy theories,  which are so far out you cannot even bring yourself to identify what it is.
Put up,or shut up.

It's my thread... if you don't like it then you can fuck off!!!


Nobody is asking for your your opinion here.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Maybe HT can have a close look at the face detail and neck...?

I'm not quite sure why you think this is altered.   To make her look older, more elderly and therefore more fragile?    

I looked at the detail and the face looked like a poor photo fit version of what someone might look like...


Just look at the wrinkles and pixelated areas on face... yellow patch on one side of cheek/jawline... look at the teeth and mouth... it all looks like it's been made up to me...!

Can you enlarge pic 3 face and have a good look at it HT?

And see what you think?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Handy Andy wrote:You just burble on with your riddles,Tom.
People just cannot be bothered with your purile conspiracy theories,  which are so far out you cannot even bring yourself to identify what it is.
Put up,or shut up.

It's my thread... if you don't like it then you can fuck off!!!


Nobody is asking for your your opinion here.

You asked a question,pillock.

I gave the answer. She was 64 ad looked it.
You cannot make a conspiracy of whatever when there ain't one. She probably isn't a lefty.
It's an unflattering photo taken whilst she hadn't applied make up. She probably scrubbed up better than that, but who cares.

And probably not a Muslim.
Rather defeats your arguments.

Handy Andy wrote:She was 64.
She looked about...............64.
Shock horror.
The lefty press have made her look more left wing or Democrat. tsk  tsk.  Naughty  Labour Party.  Corbyn will do anything to steal votes from UKIP, won't they Tom?

She looks way older than 64.

Tommy Monk wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I'm not quite sure why you think this is altered.   To make her look older, more elderly and therefore more fragile?    

I looked at the detail and the face looked like a poor photo fit version of what someone might look like...


Just look at the wrinkles and pixelated areas on face... yellow patch on one side of cheek/jawline... look at the teeth and mouth... it all looks like it's been made up to me...!

Can you enlarge pic 3 face and have a good look at it HT?

And see what you think?

Perhaps she was a smoker/drinker/sun lover. That does damage to the skin and she's very wrinkled for her age. It can cause discolouration or patchiness of the skin tone. Perhaps she's got make up on that's patchy or the light is just wrong. I don't think it's altered.

Yanks always look older than Brits. It's a lifestyle thing. Exercise, eating and so on.

I do think it is altered...

Tommy Monk wrote:I do think it is altered...

Run it through here if you're that concerned.

https://29a.ch/2012/4/15/image-error-level-analysis-with-html5

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I think you should get an Eye test...
Or some help.

You seem to think that a digital photo is photoshop
what you are pointing out is just DIGITAL photgraphy not photoshop

AS I'VE said a couple of times before...

Poor l'il ol' Tommy doesn't even seem to realise just what "Photoshop" even is..
That is,  a registered and trademarked name for a proprietary digital photo' handling and editing package.

Instead, he prefers to just keep on digging himself into that hole, deeper and deeper..

Is there a reason you don't actually address Tommy but speak about him, rather like one prepubescent child to another?

Handy Andy wrote:Yanks always look older than Brits. It's a lifestyle thing. Exercise, eating and so on.

That's a bit unfair.

eddie wrote:

Handy Andy wrote:Yanks always look older than Brits. It's a lifestyle thing. Exercise, eating and so on.

That's a bit unfair.

Harsh but  true.

It's actually really hard to tell someone's age just by looking at them. I still get carded at 41 years old.

Ben Reilly wrote:It's actually really hard to tell someone's age just by looking at them. I still get carded at 41 years old.

Why even entertain this.
If the press looked to make her look better in a picture, what does it matter, she was murdered, whcih is the most telling point here.
If people are more interested in the fact the press wanted to make her look more youthful, so what Ben.
You and i kno what matters, is this encapsulates who she is as a person
Why entertain stupidity?

It says more that people are going off this then the fact she was murdered.
How much does that insult the fact she was?

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:It's actually really hard to tell someone's age just by looking at them. I still get carded at 41 years old.

Why even entertain this.
If the press looked to make her look better in a picture, what does it matter, she was murdered, whcih is the most telling point here.
If people are more interested in the fact the press wanted to make her look more youthful, so what Ben.
You and i kno what matters, is this encapsulates who she is as a person
Why entertain stupidity?

If we can alter TM's outlook on this a bit, maybe we can keep him from talking about photoshop in every thread that has an image in it, and in so doing, keep him from doing a week in the basement.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:



Why even entertain this.
If the press looked to make her look better in a picture, what does it matter, she was murdered, whcih is the most telling point here.
If people are more interested in the fact the press wanted to make her look more youthful, so what Ben.
You and i kno what matters, is this encapsulates who she is as a person
Why entertain stupidity?

If we can alter TM's outlook on this a bit, maybe we can keep him from talking about photoshop in every thread that has an image in it, and in so doing, keep him from doing a week in the basement.

Fair enough, but I do not think it warrants that.
I think better to point out who she was rather than some issue over airbrushing how she looked.
Espicailly when people do this daily to look better.
I prefer to reason that.
I get why the press would want to make her look at her best and to Tommy, I have to say a really piss poor way to look into the issue over the fact she was murdered

Photoshop is an invention created by the Labour Party,  purely for the intention of denigrating UKIP leaders by making them look even more gormless than they do in reality,and to make Muslims look less barbaric.
At least that is a conspiracy theory that Tom would support.

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:



Why even entertain this.
If the press looked to make her look better in a picture, what does it matter, she was murdered, whcih is the most telling point here.
If people are more interested in the fact the press wanted to make her look more youthful, so what Ben.
You and i kno what matters, is this encapsulates who she is as a person
Why entertain stupidity?

If we can alter TM's outlook on this a bit, maybe we can keep him from talking about photoshop in every thread that has an image in it, and in so doing, keep him from doing a week in the basement.

Fair enough, but I do not think it warrants that.
I think better to point out who she was rather than some issue over airbrushing how she looked.
Espicailly when people do this daily to look better.
I prefer to reason that.
I get why the press would want to make her look at her best and to Tommy, I have to say a really piss poor way to look into the issue over the fact she was murdered

If that photo was altered by the press, I'd expect someone to get fired over that.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


Fair enough, but I do not think it warrants that.
I think better to point out who she was rather than some issue over airbrushing how she looked.
Espicailly when people do this daily to look better.
I prefer to reason that.
I get why the press would want to make her look at her best and to Tommy, I have to say a really piss poor way to look into the issue over the fact she was murdered

If that photo was altered by the press, I'd expect someone to get fired over that.

I do not and do you know why?


IF you have been to a wake, what they do is make the person deceased looked as best as they can for those mourning.
Its done out of respect.
Sadly it never works as the person deceased looks like a wax doll and I mean no disrespect

So if they did fo this to make her look better, no they should not be sacked, her family I would guess would want her to look at her best.

That is how they would want her to be remembered by

It's sad that an innocent lady who was murdered in a most horrendous way is being judged on her appearance.
She looks happy, and her happiness was snatched away from her by a heinous act of violence......I doubt her family are worried about wrinkles or lines or whether the photo was flattering or not.....they have more important thinks to care about.

Syl wrote:It's sad that an innocent  lady who was murdered in a most horrendous way is being judged on her appearance.
She looks happy, and her happiness was snatched away from her by a heinous act of violence......I doubt her family are worried about wrinkles or lines or whether the photo was flattering or not.....they have more important thinks to care about.

No I doubt they are worried Syl or even worrried if someone has air brushed them either as to them. Its about remebering who she was.
The fact this is even a thread is in the worst possible taste and that is my point

I always thought older Americans look younger than their age...


And the strange thing about this pic... is that the rest of it, even stuff in background, is quite clear when pic is enlarged... but face and neck in the foreground doesn't...

Tommy Monk wrote:Wolf you are a prize prick... of course I bloody well know what photoshop is!!!

Isn't a prick a synonym for a penis, a phallus, the homogeneous part to the clitoris? Why is this RW'r equating a poster with a body part, in a thread about image technology?

Tommy Monk wrote:
I always thought older Americans look younger than their age...


And the strange thing about this pic... is that the rest of it, even stuff in background, is quite clear when pic is enlarged... but face and neck in the foreground doesn't...

Who cares about that Tommy.
You are making a really crappy point over someone recently murdered.
Why
Does it benefit you to do do so?

The best way i can describe how this thread is in so the worst taste possible, is we are not even looking towards how this person even lived.
She was murdered and how we are going to remember this crime is now over how she is presented in one photo.

Talk about adding even more insult to injury to the memory of this womans life

Handy Andy wrote:Yanks always look older than Brits. It's a lifestyle thing. Exercise, eating and so on.

She is from Florida. And, she is of the generation that worshiped suntans and the destruction of skin cells. She looks just like here lifestyle...I"m sorry to say for her sake.

Tommy Monk wrote:
I always thought older Americans look younger than their age...

Americans are obsessed with straight teeth. That's the difference. Look at hers....great, eh?

TOMMY'S showing himself to be a bigger and bigger dunce, day by day...
The boy really needs to get out a bit more..

AUSSIES often look older than many Americans, on the average; while many Americans look older than your average Brit's, and French, Germans, etc.

It has a lot to do with the amount of time they spend outdoors -- especially in the first 15 to 20 years of their lives, and the severity of the sun and wind in the locales they grow up in..

Then there's the fact, that people over the age of 45 or 50 usually didn't have ready access to good sunscreens and moisturisers in their younger days..
And it was unfortunate that hats and long sleeved shirts were out of fashion for a while in many areas, from the 1960s through to the '90s.

IT ALL adds up to producing that well-weathered look among many elderly and middle-aged Yanks and Aussies..        

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Wolf you are a prize prick... of course I bloody well know what photoshop is!!!

Isn't a prick a synonym for a penis, a phallus, the homogeneous part to the clitoris?  Why is this RW'r equating a poster with a body part, in a thread about image technology?

With Tommy being this forum's ace dickhead, by far, the poor wee lad probably has genitals on the brain !!!

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
I always thought older Americans look younger than their age...


And the strange thing about this pic... is that the rest of it, even stuff in background, is quite clear when pic is enlarged... but face and neck in the foreground doesn't...

Who cares about that Tommy.
You are making a really crappy point over someone recently murdered.
Why
Does it benefit you to do do so?

A pic taken with a digital camera (which some are presuming was used to take this pic) would not make everything look clear except face when pic enlarged...


There are heavy pixelated areas around all the facial features as well as various other obvious colour discrepancies... which are sure signs of photoshop editing...


I'm just saying what I'm seeing... that is all...


And... Didge... in that pic of liberated prisoners on your thread that I commented on... I was just pointing out something I noticed about the picture itself... not about the subject matter... and not in any way denying the horrors of ww2...


If you select that pic and select view image... then enlarge it a bit... look at the front row of men... from right you left as you are looking at the image... I think it was the second man in I was talking about... look at HIS RIGHT ARM (arm to the left as you are looking at pic)... the shoulder bit and hand appear to be showing... but the elbow bit and bit above and below seem to have vanished and are 'overlapped' by a bit of someone who is supposed to be standing some distance behind him...


When you zoom in to this bit it just looks totally wrong...




And to all... I will not make any further comments on any other thread about pictures looking dodgy... I will bring it over to this thread for comment... and if any of you don't want to see what I'm saying then just don't come here to look!

Tommy you are what i can only describe as being paranoid

Offer up real evidence that a photto taken in 1945 was photoshoped and then reason why it would even need to be if unless you then believe the holocaust did not happen?

You see tommy, what you never factor into your claims is one thing

Motive

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


AS I'VE said a couple of times before...

Poor l'il ol' Tommy doesn't even seem to realise just what "Photoshop" even is..
That is,  a registered and trademarked name for a proprietary digital photo' handling and editing package.

Instead, he prefers to just keep on digging himself into that hole, deeper and deeper..

Is there a reason you don't actually address Tommy but speak about him, rather like one prepubescent child to another?

I'VE had Tommy on my foes list for the past two or three months; so I don't quote him directly -- but comment on other people's remarks about him...

THAT'S the thing about both Tommy and Stormee --  even when you've blocked them, there's still plenty of other people quoting the rubbish that they post..    

Then ignore it wolfie please. If he's on your foe list then ignore everyone's quotes about him, because you keep arriving on threads and just discussing what he's up to all the time.

To be fair everyone, tommy did start a thread, in Misc. section, about photos...not the underlying story of the wife a a psychology professor from Florida State University, who was stabbed to death in London. It doesn't have the feel of an oblique attack on Muslims, or anything else. He seems to have a hobby, and that's looking at photos very closely, or...looking for flaws and falsehoods.

But I do think, tommy, there has been a pretty substantial rebuttal of your slant on this photo.

Didge... I'm just saying what I'm seeing after taking the time to actually have a good look at what I'm being shown...


It's not paranoid to look closely at things... but it is gullible to believe everything you you are told/shown without question...